Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SOB on February 20, 2006, 04:01:46 PM
-
This is a sad state of affairs. True the guy is an *******, and probably needs a good swift kick in the ass, but jailed for having an opinion and talking about it? I'd say that's a much worse act than claiming there wasn't really a holocaust.
Story Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial)
Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years in Jail
By VERONIKA OLEKSYN, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - Right-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison Monday after admitting to an Austrian court that he denied the Holocaust — a crime in the country where Hitler was born.
Irving, who pleaded guilty and then insisted during his one-day trial that he now acknowledged the Nazis' World War II slaughter of 6 million Jews, had faced up to 10 years behind bars. Before the verdict, Irving conceded he had erred in contending there were no gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving testified, at one point expressing sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."
Irving, stressing he only relied on primary sources, said he came across new information in the early 1990's from top Nazi officials — including personal documents belonging to Adolf Eichmann — that led him to rethink certain previous assertions.
But despite his apparent epiphany, Irving, 67, maintained he had never questioned the Holocaust.
"I've never been a Holocaust denier and I get very angry when I'm called a Holocaust denier," he said.
Irving's lawyer said he would appeal the sentence.
"I consider the verdict a little too stringent. I would say it's a bit of a message trial," attorney Elmar Kresbach said.
State prosecutor Michael Klackl declined to comment on the verdict. In his closing arguments, however, he criticized Irving for "putting on a show" and for not admitting that the Nazis killed Jews in an organized and systematic manner.
Irving appeared shocked as the sentence was read out. Moments later, an elderly man identifying himself as a family friend called out "Stay strong, David! Stay strong!" before he was escorted from the courtroom.
Irving has been in custody since his November arrest on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews.
Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived at the court carrying one of his most controversial books — "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
Throughout the day, Irving sat quietly and attentively in the stifling courtroom.
Irving's trial was held amid new — and fierce — debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered violent protests worldwide.
"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech," Irving said. "The law is an ass."
The court convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."
Austria was Hitler's birthplace and once was run by the Nazis.
"He is everything but a historian ... He is a dangerous falsifier of history," Klackl said, calling Irving's statements an "abuse of freedom of speech."
Klackl said the Austrian law does not "hinder historical works."
"You have to look at each case individually," he said. "The point is, what is someone trying to do? It's the intent."
Kresbach, however, said people "should have a right to be wrong."
The verdict was welcomed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which also highlighted the issue of freedom of speech.
"While Irving's rants would not have led to legal action in the United States, it is important that we recognize and respect Austria's commitment to fighting Holocaust denial, the most odious form of hatred, as part of its historic responsibility to its Nazi past," the center's associate dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, said in a statement.
Kresbach said last month the controversial Third Reich historian was getting up to 300 pieces of fan mail a week from supporters around the world and was writing his memoirs in detention under the working title "Irving's War."
Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in the southern Austrian province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989. He tried to win his provisional release on $24,000 bail, but a Vienna court rejected the motion, saying it considered him a flight risk.
Within two weeks of his arrest, he asserted through his lawyer that he had come to acknowledge the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers.
However, he has claimed previously that Adolf Hitler knew little if anything about the Holocaust, and he has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" to exterminate the Jewish population on such a massive scale.
Irving, the author of nearly 30 books, has contended most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.
In 2000, Irving sued American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court, but lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist."
Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.
In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.
-
In another thread I claimed that Western Europeans would let anyone get away with anything, except denying the holocaust.
I've been proved.
-
Congrats...would you like a cookie?
-
Jah.. give him the cookie.
Yes, THAT cookie
:D
-
So the Austrian government still hasn't gotten that goose-stepping thing out of its system.
-
In Germany, denying the holocaust or forwarding anti-semite views are considered the same as "inciting to riot" or "fighting words" in the US... Not protected forms of speech.
I figure they have good reason for this, considering the number of neo-nazis they still have to deal with. It's one of those problems where if they let it slide even one little bit, sort of like racism in the US, it's only a matter of time before it would become a huge behavior problem (riots, lynching, etc) instead of merely expressing opinions.
Proponents of segregation in the US used the same arguments about free speech, but in these cases (holocaust in Germany, racism in the US) the govt had to step in and legislate the country away from a rotten and festering moral decay.
IMHO...
-
Is spewing B/S an opinion?
The guy was sprouting factually wrong information (he even admitted it) about an EXTREMELY sensitive topic, as Eagl points out. It wasn't an opinion...it was lies.
-
Who decides what a lie is? The government?
-
History has a way of dictating the future events of a society. If you do not understand the history of a society, it is probable you would not understand why they do the things they do.
Our own countries history has caused many laws to be on the books, which would seem trite, oppressive, and/or downright silly to other people of the world.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Is spewing B/S an opinion?
The guy was sprouting factually wrong information (he even admitted it) about an EXTREMELY sensitive topic, as Eagl points out. It wasn't an opinion...it was lies.
So. Do want to criminalize lying? How would you imprison 99.9999999% of the population?
-
Tarmac,
Sometimes, yes.
A real-world example I read about in school:
As desegregation laws began to get passed, a whites-only club owner posted "no animals allowed" on the door, and next to it posted a "scientific" study that proved blacks were not really human.
You guessed it, the govt said he was wrong and that the assertion that blacks were not human was a "lie" that in practice was not protected by the constitution. It never was protected by the constitution as it is not only untrue but inflammatory "incite to riot" sort of nonsense, but it took the creation of laws that specifically addressed that particular lie before it could begin to get stamped out.
Germany has the same problem. The holocaust did in fact occur. Only hate filled racists, bigots, and religious extremists deny this as the evidence and documentation is overwhelming. But spreading lies about the holocaust has real, concrete effects that can ultimately lead to a repeat genocide attempt if not stamped out, so the govt has an obligation to halt the spread of these lies.
IMHO.
-
Of course not thrawn. They've specifically targeted one problem area. That sounds like marvelous governmental restraint to me.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Of course not thrawn. They've specifically targeted one problem area. That sounds like marvelous governmental restraint to me.
Governments screwing with freedom get of a pass from enough people, they don't my help. How sad is it when we say. "Well, they only ****ed with the freedom of a few people....". That's not where I want the benchmark to be.
PS: Austria....missing the point since 1938.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Tarmac,
Sometimes, yes.
A real-world example I read about in school:
As desegregation laws began to get passed, a whites-only club owner posted "no animals allowed" on the door, and next to it posted a "scientific" study that proved blacks were not really human.
You guessed it, the govt said he was wrong and that the assertion that blacks were not human was a "lie" that in practice was not protected by the constitution. It never was protected by the constitution as it is not only untrue but inflammatory "incite to riot" sort of nonsense, but it took the creation of laws that specifically addressed that particular lie before it could begin to get stamped out.
Germany has the same problem. The holocaust did in fact occur. Only hate filled racists, bigots, and religious extremists deny this as the evidence and documentation is overwhelming. But spreading lies about the holocaust has real, concrete effects that can ultimately lead to a repeat genocide attempt if not stamped out, so the govt has an obligation to halt the spread of these lies.
IMHO.
In your segregation case (which I'm unfamiliar with), did the government declare his speech illegal, or did it protect his right to say it but not his perceived right to act on it by banning blacks from his business? That's what I see as the difference... speaking vs acting. Criminalize genocide, murder, assault, and denying people entry based on race, handicap, whatever, and all that other stuff we already have laws about, and apply them harshly when necessary.
I have a very large problem with the government defining the truth, and then criminalizing other opinions. A lot of people don't believe it could happen here, in our enlightened western society, but I bet the Chinese and North Koreans see themselves as pretty enlightened too... because their government tells them that it's the "truth."
-
Here in Canada we had someone named Ernst Zundel who was publicly speaking about holocaust denial; We ended up deporting him the hell out of here
I will add that I am a bit surprised by the severety of the punishments. It seems we can speak about anything, even the non-existence of God, but the only thing that can't be mentioned is holocaust denial. I think I would be more comfortable with total freedom of speech; If someone speaks about something that is outrageous and just stupid, well let them be known for that.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Who decides what a lie is? The government?
In this particular case the guy himself admitted to "making a mistake":
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,"
Well then you should have stfu. Especially when the country you live in made making such assertions illegal.
-
Originally posted by Curval
In this particular case the guy himself admitted to "making a mistake":
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,"
Well then you should have stfu. Especially when the country you live in made making such assertions illegal.
CONFESS OR VE VILL THROW YOU IN ZE JAIL!
-
I believe the muslim who murdered the Right Wing dutch activist was sentenced to less time.
-
At least he didn’t build a plastic model ME 109 with a swastika on its tail; then he’d really be in trouble!
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
So the Austrian government still hasn't gotten that goose-stepping thing out of its system.
In an art museum not long ago I saw a 17th century Chinese couch with a back rest that had wood lattice work carved into many swastikas.
I wonder how many generations it will take before that particular design looses it's infamy.
-
Eagl is absolutely correct. That guy knowingly broke the law, guilty of a hate or racism crime.
The warrant was from 1989, seems to have taken him a long time to say he was sorry and he was mistaken in what he said, while still saying it elsewhere.
Thrawn, this isn't about freedom of speech, its about perpetuating a view or belief that is used to incite racism and hatred. And that quite often results in death.
-
WARNING, GROSS STUFF
Get this.
Irving has been nicely in the club of Holocaust denialists, - or rather in the club of those who wanted to haggle it down in numbers.
He has been hated a lot for the publication of Allied attrocities. Dresden, PQ-17 and such have been held high by him.
Thereby he has FUELLED the Neo-Nazis (them usually being thick-as-a-brick anyway) with his "history" work.
He has however brought up questions and such, - more or less to be proved wrong.
Now, if you go on to Zundel, you will find a real denialist.
I studied that story quite a bit - and oh dear, that guy is nuts.
To work on his case, he even sent a "Specialist of execution chambers" to analyze the ruins of Auscwitz/Birkeau etc...and the results....
Some of the Basic claims:
1. Jews didn't get killed by those numbers.
2. There was no way to burn the bodies that fast.
3. Zyklon was not effective enough to choke them
4. The chambers weren't tight enough to kill a human.
5. The chambers were for delousing the Jew's clothes, not killing them.
6. No proof of advanced chambers, for exclusively people.
7. Ignition problems...you couldn't have put up enough ppm of gas (be it cyanide or CO) without explosions
8 Not enough records of transported Zyclon as well as fuel to kill and burn the bodies.
These 8 items make me sick. I actually spent some 2 days last year to go through this dung, and it made me really sick. Ok, some findings, whick I'd like to print on big thick paper and stuff it into those gentleman's exhaust pipes:
1. Jews are still missing by those numbers. Actually more. Jews missing from WW2 equal roughly the population of Israel today.
2. 30-40 kg body, naked is no equilevent of a 90 kg body in coffin and all. That was the comparison. The remains do not have to fit in a jar anyway.
3. Zyklon needs only 0.7% of the strenght used in those US execution facilities that still use it (if they do) to kill a person, - even without inhaling.
Numbers being 300 ppm vs 50.000 ppm
4. The chambers "not sufficient enough" were for delousing, which needs a lot more density than humans. Anyway if you look at this openly , this means you couldn't commit suicide by letting your car run inside the garage. Belive that? Zyklon B is a lot more leathal ....
5. Yeahhh...sure. All for welfare eh?
6. Why did they get demolished as a priority just before enemy capture?
7. How did you delouse then? Anyway, the necessary amount of Zyklon to kill a human in less than a minute or so, is well beneath ignititing values.
8. Not enough selling notes from the Reich. Bear in mind that this was not to be supposed to be discovered at all. There are however extensive records AND findings of hair, clothes (railwagons of babyclothes make me sick)glasses, teeth, shoes, etc, - enough with the records of transfer, - to establish a horrible database of how much the actual matter actually was.
I may have lost myself a tad there. After being in Auscwitz, and Birkenau (to top it I went by train) as well as Dachau, I get a stomach pain from reading stuff like Irving, and especially Zunder. I hope they share a cell :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
In another thread I claimed that Western Europeans would let anyone get away with anything, except denying the holocaust.
I've been proved.
Yes, if "Western Europeans" were one people living in one country under one set of laws ...
You have been proven a fool.
-
Cmon Harry, don't kick a man when hes down. :D
-
Originally posted by Ping
Thrawn, this isn't about freedom of speech, its about perpetuating a view or belief that is used to incite racism and hatred. And that quite often results in death.
So, the people that get incited aren't robots. They make the choice to act on the words said by whatever retard is saying them. To say that someone is going to incite a riot by spewing stupid crap is to charge them with like...future-crime.
-
So.... printing and distributing counterfeit money should be OK because it's only theft after it's used to buy something?
Selling explosives to kids should be ok because there's no harm done until the kid blows their hands off? Like the explosive seller should be punished for the bad judgement of the kids and the parents who didn't monitor their kids?
Really Thrawn, you can do better :)
-
He was convicted and sentenced in an Austrian court for violating Austrian law in Austria. I feel neither sorry for him, nor feel he was unjustly persecuted.
-
Yup.
A little side note: When Eisenhower toured the death camps he insisted that everything be photographicly documented. Then he brought the people from the local towns in, had them bury the dead. Had that documented too. He was insistent about the evidence being shown to the world.
"The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.
I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.' Some members of the visiting party were unable to continue through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton's headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt."
Eisenhower was prescient on this one, enh?
-
lot of good it did eh Hangtime.
Most Arab people dont believe the holocaust even happened. Arab people want to finsh what Hitler started. Arab people, with their peaceful and all loving Islam, want to destroy the people of the old testament.
Is it even a fight worth getting involved in? If we fight this with the jews we would end up killing about half the planet. What are we to do?
Yeager seeks the thoughts and wisdom of the old men.
Hangtime! help me out here bro. Toad, show me the way!
Also, Eagl can chime in here....he aint as old as those other two buggers but man, is he is a smart fella.
I would ask sandman and MT for their advice, but they are neither old nor wise, so its all up to HANGTIME, TOAD and EAGL!!!!!!!
Wheres Drex anyway?
-
Those support laws against holocaust denails are in the same camp as those who want to ban religious caricatures.
"The laws are in place to stop moral decay"
"They're lies "
"Extremely sensitive area"
All of the three above can be said about the Mohammed caricatures.
The Jyllands-Posten culture publisher dude is on leave, for saying he would publish holocaust-caricatures.
So, they may be right. We may have double standards here.
Question is: do we fix this or not? And do we fix it by broadening our freedoms or by restricting them?
Let the nutters rant, I say
-
Yeag; shopping for morality on this BBS is kinda like shopping for an american made futon at wallmart...
...you'll get something you can be screwed on, but it won't smell quite right even before you get started.
-
Originally posted by eagl
So.... printing and distributing counterfeit money should be OK because it's only theft after it's used to buy something?
Yep.
Selling explosives to kids should be ok because there's no harm done until the kid blows their hands off? Like the explosive seller should be punished for the bad judgement of the kids and the parents who didn't monitor their kids?
Nope, explosive dude can't sell anything to a kid because kids can't consent to contracts.
Really Thrawn, you can do better :)
Nah, Austria can do better. I mean we aren't even talking about concrete materials being exchanged, but ideas. I have no doubt that any holocaust denier will get his bellybutton kicked in a dicussion on the topic, there's just to much evidence that it happened. That is how society is protected by these morons, rational debate not by criminalising speech.
Besides, to paraphrase someone on this board or AGW. Freedom of speech is great because it lets the idiots proclaim themselves as such.
-
Freedom of speech is great because it lets the idiots proclaim themselves as such.
life is just a spinchter contest.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
He was convicted and sentenced in an Austrian court for violating Austrian law in Austria. I feel neither sorry for him, nor feel he was unjustly persecuted.
I agree. He knew what the law was and decided to commit the crime anyway. It's like the foreign drug traffickers in Indonesia that have been sentenced to death. They new the penalty but committed the crime anyway.
-
I believe the muslim who murdered the Right Wing dutch activist was sentenced to less time.
Do you mean the Dutch man who murdered the right wing politician Pim Fortuyn? He got 18 years. Or the Dutch Muslim who murdered Theo van Gogh, the documentary maker? He got life without the possibility of parole (a rare sentence in the Netherlands, about 30 handed out in the last 60 years)
-
words are not explosives. Their are laws on possesing explosives... explosives have no free will.. they can't decide to explode or not or where they will.
It seems that he ran afoul of that countries "hate speech" every government has a "hate speech" and they use it to control their subjects. Free speech is just to dangerous.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I believe the muslim who murdered the Right Wing dutch activist was sentenced to less time.
well ... he was sentenced to life withour parole * ...
It's a bit more than 3 year :)
* parole or parol ?
-
Why are you ruining a good thread with facts? GO AWAY FROGGIE !
-
I was exhaggerating, but I am absolutely sure the dude recieved no more than 13 years.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4716909.stm
-
hmmm. Im thinking.
Didn't that Danish newspaper insult Islam with those Stupid pointless cartoons? And got away with it under "Freedom of Speech"
Im not defending him, but was wondering, how come this guy does not come under "freedom of Speech" ?
Again, Im just asking :aok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
In another thread I claimed that Western Europeans would let anyone get away with anything, except denying the holocaust.
I've been proved.
there's your answer.
-
Originally posted by randomguy
hmmm. Im thinking.
Didn't that Danish newspaper insult Islam with those Stupid pointless cartoons? And got away with it under "Freedom of Speech"
Im not defending him, but was wondering, how come this guy does not come under "freedom of Speech" ?
Again, Im just asking :aok
Maybe because the holocaust denial took place in Austria. Tough for Danish law to help out there, don't ya think?
and I don't care one way or the other on this issue. The guy broke a law he knew was there, seems like he got what he deserved. Now, does the law itself make sense? Can't say, I am not an Austrian.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Now, does the law itself make sense? Can't say, I am not an Austrian
Of course you can, or does your brain stop working when a moral question happens to be situated in another country?
-
You're right Thrawn, I can have an opinion on this. However, I truly don't give a **** about a guy getting thrown in jail for breaking a law he knew existed, regardless of how right or wrong I think the law is. I suppose I should have just stated that, but I didn't.
Please continue your debate.
-
What's it like to have no soul?
-
Although I do find this law to be pretty pathetic, I have to agree with Mathman and others regarding the guy breaking the law. Stupid or no, if you break a law you should be prepared to face the consequences.
-
SOB = souless
-
Persons who approve of such laws and of the prosecution of individuals under them pose a greater danger to the Western libertarian tradition than Irving does.
-
One other thing Irving was arrrested on a warrant issued in 1989 and convicted under a law passed in 1992...
-
Unless you are Austrian, you have no right to grant approval of sovereign Austrian domestic laws, and Thrawn does not have the power or privilege of granting 'souless' status on anyone. The laws and culture of any nation are the sole domain of its citizens.
You would expect the same consideration and respect for your nations domestic laws and culture by those who are granted the privilege of visiting your nation.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Unless you are Austrian, you have no right to grant approval of sovereign Austrian domestic laws, and Thrawn does not have the power or privilege of granting 'souless' status on anyone. The laws and culture of any nation are the sole domain of its citizens.
The souless status is ment in jest.
You would expect the same consideration and respect for your nations domestic laws and culture by those who are granted the privilege of visiting your nation.
Yes, I expect those who are guests in my country to respect our laws, as retarded as they may or may not be.
I am not arguing the right of Austria to have retarded laws. I am arguing the rightness of those retarded laws.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Unless you are Austrian, you have no right to grant approval of sovereign Austrian domestic laws, and Thrawn does not have the power or privilege of granting 'souless' status on anyone. The laws and culture of any nation are the sole domain of its citizens.
You would expect the same consideration and respect for your nations domestic laws and culture by those who are granted the privilege of visiting your nation.
I worship Thrawn as my Canuckian God, so yeah he does. Thrawn giveth, and Thrawn taketh away. Please Thrawn, accept this basket of beer and poutine as a sign of my faith...please give me my soul back, eh! Hoser.
Is it OK if I have an opinion of an Austrian law, or is that out of line? I don't expect any Austrian to give a damn what my opinion is, and I don't plan on heading to Austria to shout my opinion from the rooftops.
-
Originally posted by SOB
I worship Thrawn as my Canuckian God, so yeah he does. Thrawn giveth, and Thrawn taketh away. Please Thrawn, accept this basket of beer and poutine as a sign of my faith...please give me my soul back, eh! Hoser.
Souless status is arbitrary and final. Sorry, if there was anything I could do...
-
Ah... jesting is good. I approve... ;)
-
yep... it's their law and he broke it. It is a really stupid law that violates human rights but... it's their law.
That is why you stay out of other countries or walk on eggs when you are visiting them.... that is why you don't let the UN have any power over your own country.
lazs
-
Hang the SOB......:aok